Evolution is "atheism masquerading as science"

[Galvatron]

I inadvertantly ran across this article by clicking on a link Penny-Arcade and I just had to share...

Link

The problem with evolution is not that it is unscientific but that it is routinely taught in textbooks and in the classroom in an atheist way. Textbooks frequently go beyond the scientific evidence to make metaphysical claims about how evolution renders the idea of a Creator superfluous. Here are some examples that are drawn from my recent bestseller What’s So Great About Christianity.

Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson writes 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."

Some Christians seek to counter this atheism by trying to expose the flaws in the Darwinian account of evolution. This explains the appeal of "creation science" and the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. These critiques, however, have not made any headway in the scientific community and they have also failed whenever they have been tried in the courts.

Most Christians don't care whether the eye evolved by natural selection or whether Darwin's theories can account for macroevolution or only microevolution. What they care about is that evolution is being used to deny God as the creator. For those who are concerned about this atheism masquerading as science, there is a better way. Instead of trying to get unscientific ID theories included in the classroom, a better strategy would be to get the unscientific atheist propaganda out.

How can this be achieved?

Consider this: the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching or promoting atheism in any way. How do I know this? Well, the religion clauses of the First Amendment protect the "free exercise" of religion and at the same time forbid the "establishment" of religion. Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated. In other words, the term "religion" means not only "religion" but also "atheism."

Yet if the free exercise clause defines religion in a way that includes atheism, then the no-establishment clause must define religion in the same way. So the agencies of government are prohibited from "establishing" not only religion but also atheism. This means that just as a public school teacher cannot advocate Christianity or hand out Bibles to his students, so too public school textbooks and science teachers cannot advocate atheism.

I'd like to see Christian legal groups suing school districts for promoting atheism in the biology classroom. No need to produce creationist or ID critiques of Darwinism. All that is necessary is to parade the atheist claims that have made their way into the biology textbooks and biology lectures. The issue isn't the scientific inadequacy of evolution but the way in which it is being used to undermine religious belief and promote unbelief. If the case can be made that atheism is being advocated in any way, then the textbooks would have to be rewritten and classroom presentations changed to remove the offending material. Schools would be on notice that they cannot use scientific facts to draw metaphysical conclusions in favor of atheism.

In this way Darwinism in the public schools would no longer be a threat to religion in general or Christianity in particular.

Bestselling author Dinesh D'Souza's new book What's So Great About Christianity has just been released. His book The Enemy at Home will be published in paperback in February.

[Darth Wong]

And here I thought my opinion of Dinesh D'Doucha could not sink any lower.

[Patrick Degan]

Consider this: the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits public schools from teaching or promoting atheism in any way. How do I know this? Well, the religion clauses of the First Amendment protect the "free exercise" of religion and at the same time forbid the "establishment" of religion. Courts have routinely held that the free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but also the absence of religious beliefs. If you are fired from your government job because you are an atheist, your First Amendment rights have been violated. In other words, the term "religion" means not only "religion" but also "atheism."

Yet if the free exercise clause defines religion in a way that includes atheism, then the no-establishment clause must define religion in the same way. So the agencies of government are prohibited from "establishing" not only religion but also atheism. This means that just as a public school teacher cannot advocate Christianity or hand out Bibles to his students, so too public school textbooks and science teachers cannot advocate atheism.

Liar or imbecile. There is no third possibility.

[TheKwas]

Of all the quotes he identified, only the Futuyma was from an actual textbook and the quote wasn't atheistic at all. It merely said that evolution is real and the other theories are not.

[Elaro]

See, they're working on the idea that all beliefs *ha-harumph* "Metaphysical conclusions" are the same, made-up bullshit. While, technically, we cannot determine for sure whether God doesn't exists or is pretending not to, but that doesn't make them any the more right.

And besides,

"By coupling undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."

"the result of a natural process...without any need to resort to a Creator."

How is saying a Creator is unnecessary an argument for atheism? It's more like an argument against theism... And since the absent of theism is atheism... I see what he did there. What an annoying, circular-thinking fellow.

[Twoyboy]

Of all the quotes he identified, only the Futuyma was from an actual textbook and the quote wasn't atheistic at all. It merely said that evolution is real and the other theories are not.

That's just what I was thinking. He has no atheistic quotes from textbooks or classrooms, only "popular science" books, where the aim of the book was probably to compare and contrast evolution with ID or creationism in the first place.

He's effectively launching an assault on atheism while trying desperately to claim he's just defending religion from the atheistic onslaught. I agree, religion should not be directly attacked in the classroom, it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Good science is all the defense against religion one requires.

[Darth Wong]

You have to love the ignorance and stupidity of someone who says that only an atheist can subscribe to the theory of evolution, when there are countless examples of Christians who do so as well.

What he doesn't seem to realize is that by his argument, any theory which does not require divine intervention is inherently atheistic, which means that all of science is inherently atheistic. Therefore, if one follows his idiot argument to its logical conclusion, science itself is unconstitutional in America.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Well of course science should be unconstitutional. If God wanted us to know something he'd have put it in the Bible - we shouldn't be poking around at things finding stuff out he didn't want us to!

[Darth Onasi]

Idiots always lump atheism, evolution and science as a whole together in one giant conspiracy.
This is of course because Atheism is a religion, Darwin is it's prophet, the Origin of Species is it's bible and scientists are it's priests!

I guess these people are just so narrow minded that they think everybody in the world must think and operate like them.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Idiots always lump atheism, evolution and science as a whole together in one giant conspiracy.
This is of course because Atheism is a religion, Darwin is it's prophet, the Origin of Species is it's bible and scientists are it's priests!

I guess these people are just so narrow minded that they think everybody in the world must think and operate like them.

I wish scientists were priests. I would have an excuse to dress in swank, wear funny hats, burn incense and, and could get anything past an IRB I wanted... All I would have to do is wait three weeks until my ordinat... er I mean graduation.

[SpacedTeddyBear]

Well this is a new spin: "If you can't beat them, make them sound like one of us." Tax exemption sounds pretty sweet.

Well of course science should be unconstitutional. If God wanted us to know something he'd have put it in the Bible - we shouldn't be poking around at things finding stuff out he didn't want us to!

It is in the bible. All of it is scattered throughout its pages. All the faithful needs to do is cross reference enough pages to find that the Bloch theorem is in secretly coded throughout Job.

[Oskuro]

...yet another one who claims that atheism is a religion. It's borderline pathetic how they try to cling on that concept in order to antagonize atheists.


I say borderline pathetic, because it is mostly moronic.

[K. A. Pital]

Douche actually wants to ban evolution.

And some cackle when we say those guys can push all the way down to Iran-like theocracy, except a Christian one

[PainRack]

It might be more accurate, if teachers were actually forcing students to become atheists in class.......

Somehow, I doubt that's happening.

[Broomstick]

Of all the quotes he identified, only the Futuyma was from an actual textbook and the quote wasn't atheistic at all. It merely said that evolution is real and the other theories are not.

That's just what I was thinking. He has no atheistic quotes from textbooks or classrooms, only "popular science" books, where the aim of the book was probably to compare and contrast evolution with ID or creationism in the first place.

Actually, Stephen Jay Gould's "popular science" work mentions explicitly in several places that evolution does not require a God when simply explaining evolution and not when contrasting it against alternatives (although he does the latter as well, too). What's "atheistic" about Gould is that he denies the existence of phenomena such as the Great Flood entirely, pointing out that the the so-called "evidence" for it is easily explained by other phenomena, which took place neither simultaneously nor globally. But then, Gould was also a practicing Jew, not a Christian. While there are some very Bible-literal Jews then tend to be a minority, as a whole Jews seem much more willing to accept the Bible as an imperfect document than the literal and unaltered word of God.

[weemadando]

Ummm, wow. All I can really say is:

"Pot to kettle, you are black. Repeat you are black."

[Zixinus]

How interesting that he recycles the very same lines used againts him. Just replace a few words and suddenly he launches the same ammunition that is launched at him.

[TheKwas]

But then, Gould was also a practicing Jew, not a Christian.

Quick note, Gould prefered to call himself an agnostic and grew up in a secular jewish household.

[Broomstick]

Funny, that's not what I picked up. From reading his popular works he comes across to me as someone who once practiced the rituals and customs of Reformed Judaism even if he did not believe in God per se. Of course, I could be wrong on that, not having studied his biography intently.

How are you defining "secular"? I had a Jewish co-worker he was quite vocal as an atheist (he probably would have fit in quite well around here) yet continued to perform many religious rituals including the traditional orthodox year-long cycle of prayers for his deceased parents (he had promised to do so before they passed away and he was the sort to keep his promises). On the other hand he did not keep kosher and would happily eat ham and cheese sandwiches. So... was he a practicing Jew? A believing Jew? A secular Jew? An atheist?

Judaism is different than Christianity or Islam, in that one can be an atheist and also identify as a Jew. It's a little weird, but there is a sort of ethnic and cultural component to Judaism that is lacking in the other Abrahamic religions, but I don't want to derail the topic entirely by turning this into a discussion of Judaism.

[Molyneux]

But then, Gould was also a practicing Jew, not a Christian.

Quick note, Gould prefered to call himself an agnostic and grew up in a secular jewish household.

As Broomstick said, I've often seen people self-identify as "secular Jew".

[DrMckay]

Judaism is different than Christianity or Islam, in that one can be an atheist and also identify as a Jew. It's a little weird, but there is a sort of ethnic and cultural component to Judaism that is lacking in the other Abrahamic religions.

Funny, I think you explained it better than I could. And I'm a Jewish athiest.



For me, and many other Jews today, it is a reality, due to the Holocaust, and other fun events that you can't "not" be Jewish. (those that tried in Germany mostly died.) To a large extent, we have been defined, and perhaps unified as a people by the very attempt to wipe us off the map. While there may not bee much of a belief in a higher power among some, we will still have our cultural and familial traditions.

[Darth Servo]

You have to love the ignorance and stupidity of someone who says that only an atheist can subscribe to the theory of evolution, when there are countless examples of Christians who do so as well.

What he doesn't seem to realize is that by his argument, any theory which does not require divine intervention is inherently atheistic, which means that all of science is inherently atheistic. Therefore, if one follows his idiot argument to its logical conclusion, science itself is unconstitutional in America.

Um, careful Mike. Thats precisely what a lot of fundy morons want.

As for trying the idiot in the article bitching about "preaching Atheism" why is it so hard to get these people to realize that not mentioning God doesn't constitute preaching atheism? To preach Atheism, doesn't it require an explicit denial of God's existence? How can one deny God exists when he isn't mentioned at all?

[Darth Onasi]

for trying the idiot in the article bitching about "preaching Atheism" why is it so hard to get these people to realize that not mentioning God doesn't constitute preaching atheism? To preach Atheism, doesn't it require an explicit denial of God's existence? How can one deny God exists when he isn't mentioned at all?

It seems to me to be yet another example of fundie defensive mentality. If their beliefs aren't paid lip-service constantly then they're obviously being persecuted. Similarily teaching anything without factoring in God is preaching atheism.

[wautd]

I inadvertantly ran across this article by clicking on a link Penny-Arcade and I just had to share...

Link

Ugh, that comments section makes FSTDT.com look like a bastion of Reason

[Darth Wong]

You have to love the ignorance and stupidity of someone who says that only an atheist can subscribe to the theory of evolution, when there are countless examples of Christians who do so as well.

What he doesn't seem to realize is that by his argument, any theory which does not require divine intervention is inherently atheistic, which means that all of science is inherently atheistic. Therefore, if one follows his idiot argument to its logical conclusion, science itself is unconstitutional in America.

Um, careful Mike. Thats precisely what a lot of fundy morons want.

Let them have it, then. The backlash from everyone else will finally kick those fucking fundies in the teeth.